[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Prakash Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Orissa And Another on 19 December, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               CRLA No.968 of 2025
  (In the matter of an appeal Under Section-14(A) of SC &
  ST (PoA) Act).

   Prakash Kumar Sahoo                    ....        Appellant
                         -versus-
   State of Orissa and another            ....      Respondents

   For Appellant          : Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

   For Respondents        : Mr. C. Mohanty, Addl. PP
                            Mr. S.K. Padhy,
                            Advocate(Informant)
       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:19.12.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal appeal U/S.14-A of the

Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act,

2016 (in short, "the Act") in nature of bail is directed

against the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in CT Case

No.104 of 2025 by which the learned Sessions Judge-

cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur, has refused to

release the appellant on bail in connection with

Balikuda PS Case No.177 of 2025 for commission of

offences punishable U/Ss.376(2)(n)/493/313/341/294/

323/354/506/34 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/

3(2)(va) of the Act.

2. The gist of the allegation is that the victim

and the appellant are known to each other and in the

month of February, 2022, the appellant proposed to

marry the victim and on one occasion on 05.02.2023,

the appellant took the victim to one hotel at Khandagiri

on the pretext of having food, but there he kept

physical relationship with the victim despite her

objection and, thereafter, when the victim became

pregnant, the appellant and his family members

forcefully aborted her pregnancy, but subsequently,

again the appellant had taken the victim to the same

hotel and kept physical relationship on the pretext of

marrying her and after some days, the appellant and

the victim also exchanged garland before the goddess

Tarini in one temple, but subsequently, the appellant

ditched the victim by not marrying her and assaulted

her along with co-accused persons by casting aspersion

to her caste; such as "tume chhota jati, dhoba loka,

ama standard ra nuha". It is also alleged that the

appellant and his family members had assured the

victim to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, if she remains silent or

otherwise they would kill her. On this background, the

FIR was lodged resulting in the present case with

examination of the victim in the trial in the meantime.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Samvit

Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the appellant is in custody since 15.07.2025 and he is

an innocent person and has never committed the

sexual act upon the victim and all the allegations made

against him are false and concocted. Mr. Mohanty

further submits that even if the materials on record are

taken into consideration, no case under rape would be

attracted against the appellant, since it is a case of

consensual relationship and all the act of sexual

relationship being consensual in nature, no offence

would be attracted against the appellant, since both the

victim and the appellant are major. It is further

submitted that since the victim has already been

examined, but the intention of legislature is not to keep

an accused in confinement for indefinitely on the

expectation that one day he would be convicted,

however, at the same time, what would be the

consequence if the appellant would be acquitted,

because his suffering or trauma in the jail cannot be

returned back. On the aforesaid submission, Mr.

Mohanty by emphasizing the principle "bail is the rule,

but jail is the exception" prays to grant bail to the

appellant.

3.1. In opposing the prayer for bail, Mr. C.

Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by

placing the evidence of victim submits that not only the

appellant has committed rape upon the victim, but also

he has acted in cruel manner by assaulting the victim

as well as aborting her pregnancy and, therefore, the

appellant may not be granted bail.

3.2. On the other hand, Mr. Saroj Kumar Padhy,

learned counsel for the informant-victim, however,

strongly opposes the bail application of the appellant by

contending inter-alia that when the intention of the

appellant is to deceive the victim at the inception, his

sexual act would squarely covered under the purview of

rape and the victim evidence indicating about the

accused committing forcible sexual intercourse on the

first instance, the act of the appellant is squarely

covered by the definition of rape and the evidence of

the victim having clarified about the appellant and his

family members aborting pregnancy, the appellant is

prima facie liable for offence U/S. 313 of IPC, which

prescribes imprisonment for life and, therefore, the bail

application of the appellant should not be considered

lightly. Mr. Padhi also submits that when the appellant

has no intention to keep the promise from the very

beginning, the seduction of the victim would definitely

bring the act of the appellant under the purview of rape

and, therefore, the appellant should not granted bail. In

summing up his argument, Mr. Padhi prays to reject

the prayer for bail of the appellant.

4. After having considered the rival

submissions upon perusal of record, there appears

allegation against the appellant for committing sexual

intercourse despite objection by the victim, but the

subsequent sexual act of the appellant has not been

stated to be objected by the victim, however, it is not

the stage to evaluate the evidence elaborately to find

out as to whether the offence is made out or not, but

law is fairly well settled that the Court while considering

the prayer for bail has to consider and weigh the

materials on record to find out prima facie case. It is

also settled law that bail should not be withheld as a

pre-trial punishment because the detention in custody

is irreversible process and the detenue cannot be

restored ante in case of his acquittal and at the same

time, grant of bail should not be confused with letting

the accused to be acquitted, since bail is a temporary

release from the custody as well as transfer of custody

from law to surety. It is undisputed in this case that the

appellant is in custody since 15.07.2025 and in the

meantime, victim has already been examined, but it is

alleged by the victim for commission of rape and

forcible abortion of her pregnancy by the appellant,

who has countered such allegation by taking the plea

that the relationship between the parties is consensual

in nature, however, the same can be answered in a full-

fledged trial after evidence being led.

5. One of the important considerations in

granting bail is securing attendance of the accused at

the trial, but at the same time, the Court has to strike a

balance between the nature and gravity of the

accusation, the frivolity of charge sought to be brought

by the prosecution, the punishment prescribed for the

offence on conviction, the possibility of accused

tampering with the evidence and last but not the least,

the impact of release of accused on bail on the society.

In this case, since the victim has already been

examined, this Court, however, reasonably considers

that there is hardly any chance of tampering of

evidence of material witness like the victim. It is also

not sure as to when the trial would conclude, but

keeping the accused in confinement for an indefinite

period is not the spirit of law and is against the

fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. In the aforesaid facts and

circumstance, especially when the victim has already

been examined and taking into account the pre-trial

detention of the appellant in custody keeping in view

the inherent right of the accused to be presumed

innocent until proven guilty at the trial and taking into

account the other circumstances on record in entirety,

this Court does consider positively in favour of the

appellant to extend the benefit of bail.

6. Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the

impugned order is hereby quashed/set aside.

Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on such

terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the

learned Court in seisin over the matter with following

conditions:-

(i) the appellant shall not contact the victim or her family members. The appellant shall not visit to the house of the victim or her village or also to the place of her abode till disposal of the case,

(ii) the appellant shall not threaten, induce influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family of the members of the victim acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court.

This Court, however, reserves the liberty to

the informant/victim and the State to file appropriate

application for cancellation of bail, in case of violation of

any of the conditions noted above or a case for

cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. It is,

however, clarified that in case of approach to the

learned Court in seisin over the matter for cancellation

of bail, the said Court would be at liberty to pass

appropriate order in accordance with law without

further reference to this Court.

7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as

per Rules.